Comment & Debate
At present the Presidency of the European Union rotates between its fifteen member states every six months, but this involves chairing EU summits and meetings of the Council of Ministers, along with the power to set the agenda in EU affairs. Central Power within the EU lies in the European Commission, headed by its own President, since 1999 Romano Prodi. The governments of the 15 member states currently appoint the President of the Commission. In the recently convened Constitutional Convention on the future of Europe, chaired by former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the future direction of the EU is being debated. The proposal for a directly elected President of the European Commission bears directly on the future shape of the EU, with proponents of the federal model seeing this as a giant leap towards a single state, with opponents agreeing but seeing this as a further intrusion into national sovereignty.
The European Union has an impressive list of state apparatus – judiciary, laws, flag, anthem, currency, police force – to run this effectively a strong President is needed. An appointed President of the Commission owes his position to national governments and has no direct mandate from the EU’s citizens; a directly elected President would have the status and the authority to govern for all.[2]
Electing a President confers legitimacy on such a move and represents the inevitability of a European superstate, which is not necessarily desirable. The fifteen national governments in the Council of Ministers are all democratically elected with a mandate to govern in the best interests of their citizens.[3]
Having too many heads results in the political process getting infested with red tapism and the likes of a bureaucratic state. A single elected president would diminish it if not totally do away with it. It would hence lead to a more transparent state.
The commission, Parliament, council and council ministers all have divergent interests and opinions and thus often speak in their own or a particular state’s name rather than that of the entire union, confounding the problem. Since the number of people involved in the decision making process is huge, the responsibility of being accountable is in the hands of many a people thus decreasing the intensity of being accountable. Electing a president rests the responsibility of accountability on one single individual and he has to live up to it due to the constraints of a regular contest for power in the form of elections.
Direct elections increase the accountability of the president as compared to those elected by the state heads wherein such accountability gets restricted. The current system involving 27 heads of state in the council represented by a rotating president and also the presidents of the commission and the parliament makes it unclear who actually speaks for the EU.
A directly elected President would make the European Union both more legitimate and accountable, which is desirable. In any case, enlargement to 25 or more states requires institutional changes to avoid complete gridlock in decision-making.[4]
The electing of a President in no way makes the EU a more accountable institution as it invariably increases the power a single person can hold such an outcome only reflects aspects of monarchy where in accountability is at is bare minimum. Also since an elected President will undoubtedly be from a large member state his accountability can also be restricted to just his state, the need for getting votes from his state in the next general elections being an precondition for such an act. Thus resulting in the EU being not only a less accountable institution, but also an institution of unjust accountability.
There would still be an unelected central bank, court and commission making decisions. Legitimacy would not come.
as gridlock in the Council of Ministers, where real power is located, will be even more frequent than it is now.[5]
The purpose of the European Union has been full political and economic integration since the Treaty of Rome in the 1950s. Ever-closer union has been the aim. A President is necessary and inevitable for a federal grouping of States.[6]
Integration is not the only path forward. Canada remains autonomous from the US and co-operates with it in NAFTA and NATO without the need for a North American President. The imposition of an elected President may well lead to federalisation but this is not inevitable.[7]
To access the second half of this Issue Report Login or Buy Issue Report
To access the second half of all Issue Reports Login or Subscribe Now
